Page:Wikimedia UK gov review rpt v5.djvu/2



Executive Summary
This review of the governance of Wikimedia UK was commissioned jointly by Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. It was started a year after the charity was registered and after a period in which Wikimedia UK was criticised for its management of conflicts of interest. It follows a declaration by the Wikimedia UK board that it wishes to improve its governance and to receive clear recommendations.

To complete the report we reviewed policies and practices, minutes of board meetings, management of conflicts of interest, and conducted interviews and a community consultation, observed a board meeting, and drew on our experience of charity governance.

After setting the context for this review and recognising some particular features of governance within the Wikimedia movement, this report notes a number of challenges faced by the board over the year, a number of tasks that the board executed effectively, and four areas where progress in governance was faltering, slow or lacking at the time.

The report then assesses Wikimedia UK’s governance in late 2012 against a number of empirically derived characteristics of effective UK charity governance, indicating whether the characteristic has largely been achieved, is in progress, or requires attention. Particular consideration is given to the management of conflicts of interest.

As requested by the Wikimedia UK board, the report then sets out detailed recommendations for strengthening the governance of Wikimedia UK within the movement. Key amongst these are that: Compass Partnership
 * the board of Wikimedia UK should be expanded to include members who are recruited and appointed to bring specific skills and experience to the board
 * the terms of office of board members should continue to be two years but limited to three terms
 * the term of office of the Chair should be increased to two years to promote greater continuity
 * a Governance Committee should be established to take responsibility for preparing for board decisions on governance arrangements
 * greater rigour and alacrity should be given to implementation of policies on conflicts of interest, including potential and indirect conflicts